IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 22–0303

Submitted December 13, 2023—Filed January 26, 2024

BRADLEY A. CHICOINE, D.C.; DR. BRADLEY A. CHICOINE, D.C., P.C.; MARK 

A. NILES, D.C.; NILES CHIROPRACTIC, INC.; and ROD R. REBARCAK, D.C., on 

behalf of themselves and those like situated,

Appellants,

and

BEN WINECOFF; STEVEN A. MUELLER, D.C.; BRADLEY J. BROWN, D.C.; BROWN 

CHIROPRACTIC, P.C.; MARK A. KRUSE, D.C.; MARK A. KRUSE, D.C., P.C.; KEVIN 

D. MILLER, D.C.; and LARRY E. PHIPPS, on behalf of themselves and those like 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

WELLMARK, INC. d/b/a WELLMARK BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF IOWA 

and WELLMARK HEALTH PLAN OF IOWA, INC.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah E. Crane, 

Business Specialty Court Judge.

Chiropractors appeal the district court ruling denying their motion for 

class certification. AFFIRMED.

Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating 

justices joined. Mansfield, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the 

case.
2

Glenn L. Norris (argued) of Hawkins & Norris, P.C., Des Moines; Steven P. 

Wandro, Kara M. Simons, and Ben Arato of Wandro & Associates, P.C., 

Des Moines; and Harley C. Erbe of Erbe Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellants.

Zachary D. Holmstead (argued), Daniel E. Laytin, and Alyssa C. Kalisky of 

Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, Illinois, and Benjamin P. Roach of Nyemaster, 

Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
3

WATERMAN, Justice.

In this appeal, we must decide whether the district court abused its broad 

discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiffs, 

three chiropractors, allege Wellmark1 violated the Iowa Competition Law, Iowa 

Code chapter 553 (2015), through “Administrative Services Agreements” with 

over 400 employers that self-fund healthcare benefits for their employees. The 

plaintiffs claim that but for these agreements, the self-funded employers would

compete independently for chiropractic services, resulting in higher profits for 

chiropractors. The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of approximately

1,300 Iowa chiropractors. Wellmark resisted class certification on several

grounds. The district court ultimately denied certification on the ground that 

individual issues predominate over any common question on the threshold 

liability issue of antitrust injury. The plaintiffs appealed, and we retained the 

case.

On our review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its broad 

discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. To establish an 

antitrust injury, the plaintiffs must prove that they would have been better off 

without the challenged agreements as numerous self-funded employers would 

then theoretically compete with one another for chiropractic services, driving up 

rates paid for chiropractic services. The plaintiffs offered no expert testimony or 

model to address that threshold issue on a classwide basis. The district court 

carefully reviewed the extensive evidentiary record to determine that too many 

individual local variables precluded an efficient classwide determination of 

antitrust injury, as the plaintiffs ultimately conceded. We agree with that 

1The plaintiffs sued Wellmark, Inc.—doing business as Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue 

Shield of Iowa—and Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., that we collectively refer to as “Wellmark”

in this opinion.
4

determination. The district court also correctly applied judicial estoppel to 

preclude the plaintiffs from belatedly reviving a theory they previously disavowed 

to avoid a motion to dismiss asserting the single entity defense—that Wellmark’s 

operation of the agreements illegally underpaid chiropractors. Finding no abuse 

of discretion, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

This is the sixth appeal we have adjudicated in this complex litigation 

spanning over a decade.2 In this round, the named plaintiffs 

are Bradley A. Chicoine, D.C., Mark A. Niles, D.C., and Rod R. Rebarcak, D.C.,

and their respective business entities providing chiropractic services in several 

Iowa cities. Dr. Chicoine practices in Sioux City, Dr. Niles in Tipton, and 

Dr. Rebarcak in Ames. We will refer to these plaintiffs collectively as “Chicoine.”

Chicoine filed this putative class action against Wellmark, Iowa’s largest 

health insurer and claims administrator. Chicoine alleges that Wellmark has 

violated Iowa antitrust laws through its Administrative Service Agreements with 

over 400 Iowa employers who self-fund healthcare benefits for their employees. 

The self-funded employers pay their employees’ healthcare costs but hire 

Wellmark to administer their healthcare plans. The employers pay Wellmark 

administrative and network access fees, allowing access to Wellmark’s provider 

networks paying healthcare practitioners under rates negotiated by Wellmark. 

The self-funded employers contracting with Wellmark range in size from Iowa’s 

largest private employers—Hy-Vee and John Deere—to numerous small 

businesses who lack the staff or expertise to administer employee healthcare 

2Chicoine v. Wellmark, Inc., 894 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 2017); Abbas v. Iowa Ins. Div., 893 

N.W.2d 879 (Iowa 2017); Wellmark, Inc. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 890 N.W.2d 636, 638–42 (Iowa 2017)

(summarizing prior opinions); Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc. (Mueller II), 861 N.W.2d 563 (Iowa 2015);

Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc. (Mueller I), 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012).
5

claims. Chicoine alleges that Wellmark conspired with the self-funded employers 

to unlawfully fix prices paid for chiropractic services.

Wellmark filed a motion to dismiss Chicoine’s lawsuit, arguing Wellmark 

acted as the agent for the self-funded employers to administer their healthcare 

plans and, therefore, no conspiracy claim exists under the single entity doctrine 

(it takes two to conspire and a principal cannot be liable for conspiring with its 

agent as they are regarded as one actor).3 The district court stated:

It appears the plaintiffs agree that when Wellmark enters into and 

enforces the practitioner service agreements with health care 

providers, including chiropractors, they are administering the 

self-funded employers’ plans and are acting as their agents. If 

plaintiffs’ anti-trust argument was based solely upon Wellmark’s 

enforcement of the practitioner service agreements, the court might 

agree dismissal under the single-entity doctrine would be 

appropriate.

Chicoine, to avoid dismissal, argued that the antitrust violation did not occur 

when Wellmark administered the agreements, but instead occurred earlier when 

entry into the agreements removed the self-funded employers from competing 

with one another—competition that would result in higher prices for 

chiropractors. In denying the motion to dismiss, the district court relied on that

argument:

In this case, however, the plaintiffs assert that the Iowa

self-funded employers would, absent their contractual relationship 

with Wellmark, be price competitors. It is when the self-funded 

employers contract with Wellmark . . . that plaintiffs allege the 

horizontal price-fixing occurs. . . . Taken as true, the plaintiffs are 

arguing that the alleged illegal activity occurs when Wellmark and 

3In the operative pleading, the third amendment petition, Chicoine alleges that Wellmark 

acts as the agent of the self-funded employers:

In fact, the ERISA self-funded Iowa employers and the self-funded Iowa 

governmental employers entered into the form contracts with Wellmark which 

create an express agency relationship between Wellmark and the self-funded 

whereby Wellmark acts as agent for the self-fundeds (the principals) in 

relationships with Iowa health care providers such as the plaintiff chiropractors.
6

the self-funded employers enter into their contracts, and, thus, 

before Wellmark acts as the self-funded employers’ agent.

This remained Chicoine’s liability theory going forward. 

Chicoine filed a motion for certification of a class of approximately 1,300 

Iowa chiropractors defined as all licensed chiropractors “(1) who are citizens of 

the state of Iowa as of the date of filing of this petition (October 5, 2015) and/or 

(2) who have been citizens of Iowa at all times during their Iowa licensure as 

doctors of chiropractic after May 20, 2004.” Chicoine sought class certification 

on the theory that but for these agreements, the self-funded employers would 

compete with one another to provide chiropractic care for their employees, 

resulting in higher profits for Iowa chiropractors. Wellmark resisted class 

certification on several grounds, but principally argued that Chicoine could not 

show common questions predominate over individual questions on the threshold 

liability element of antitrust injury. 

The district court recognized that to establish an antitrust injury, the 

plaintiff must identify the defendant’s anticompetitive practice and show how 

“the plaintiff . . . is in a ‘worse position’ as a consequence of the defendant’s 

conduct.” (Quoting IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 924 F.3d 57, 62–

63 (2d Cir. 2019).) In seeking class certification, Chicoine argued this theory of 

antitrust injury:

Absent the Administrative Services Agreements, the Iowa 

self-fundeds would have to negotiate such [rates] directly with the 

Plaintiff chiropractors. . . . Given that each of the Iowa self-fundeds 

on its own does not control a substantial amount of the health 

insurance market in Iowa, Plaintiff chiropractors would be able to 

negotiate more favorable rates and coverage.

As the district court noted, to ascertain whether the chiropractors would be 

better off in “[t]he ‘but-for’ world would require individualized consideration of 

how particular self-funded employers, whose employees are patients of 
7

particular chiropractors, would act in the absence of the challenged 

Administrative Services Agreements.” Chicoine offered no expert testimony or 

model for proving this antitrust injury on a classwide basis.

Wellmark, by contrast, developed an extensive evidentiary record through 

experts that highlighted individual variables in determining whether individual 

chiropractors would be better or worse off without Wellmark’s agreements with 

the self-funded employers. These variables include:

• Some employers would no longer self-fund their healthcare and 

would buy insurance from Wellmark, paying the same rate for 

chiropractic services, leaving some chiropractors in the same 

position.

• Some employers would no longer cover chiropractic care at all, 

leaving some chiropractors worse off.

• Some chiropractors do not treat any self-funded patients and,

therefore, have not suffered any injury.

• Other chiropractors treat varying percentages of patients who are 

employed by different self-funded employers.

• Overhead expenses, experience, and competition among 

chiropractors varies by locale and would impact negotiations in 

a but-for world.

• Self-funded employers currently using Wellmark’s statewide 

network of chiropractors would likely contract with fewer 

chiropractors, leaving some practitioners without patients 

working for self-funded employers.

• Some self-funded employers would shift to the Iowa Chiropractic

Physicians Clinic, which pays lower rates than Wellmark, and 

chiropractors outside that network would lose patients.

• Sixty-three percent of chiropractic charges from 2010–2019 were 

billed at rates below Wellmark’s, foreclosing recovery on those 

services.

• Some chiropractors were paid in full for their billed charges 

during the relevant period, suffering no recoverable injury.

• Other chiropractors were satisfied with the rate paid by 

Wellmark.
8

• Amounts collected on billings outside the Wellmark network 

varied.

The district court, in a thorough fifteen-page ruling, considered those 

variables and found that there would be “winners and losers” in the but-for 

world. Significantly, the court found that “[w]hether individual chiropractors 

would arrive at [better rates] . . . in negotiations with individual self-funded 

employers is not susceptible to common proof.” The court also found that 

Chicoine has “not identified any way to sort through this issue [of antitrust 

injury] that would not require an assessment of individualized claims by 

chiropractor.” After analyzing cases denying class certification with similar 

individualized proof problems, the district court found that “the Plaintiffs’ 

antitrust claim will require analysis on a charge by charge basis to determine 

whether the chiropractor was fully paid and then on a chiropractor by 

chiropractor and employer by employer basis to determine whether a higher rate 

would have been negotiated absent the allegedly unlawful agreements.” These 

findings are amply supported by the record.

The court included in its written ruling a concession made by Chicoine’s 

lead counsel near the end of the oral argument at the class certification hearing 

where he admitted that the foregoing theory could not be proven classwide:

[Counsel]: It doesn’t -- we’re not saying that we’re -- that we 

would -- we would contract with individual self-fundeds. . . .

So we’re not -- we’re not going to put on evidence that “but 

for” this, that, or the other thing, doctor so-and-so in some place in 

Iowa with a contract with a self -- with an employer there, and get 

paid more. 

Now, I would agree with you that if that was our theory that 

we have an individual situation that is not proveable class-wide. 

That is real clear, and that is what Wellmark is trying to say, is that 

-- is that we must prove that the self-funded -- the self-funded itself 

would pay us more than what Wellmark is paying. But, I mean, how 

speculative can you get? The self-fundeds probably wouldn’t be 

paying [for] insurance at all for its employees.
9

Chicoine’s lead counsel then sought to revive a liability theory he 

previously disavowed to avoid Wellmark’s motion to dismiss—that the antitrust 

violation is Wellmark’s operation of the agreements to uniformly underpay for 

chiropractic services. The district court determined Chicoine should be estopped 

from reviving that argument:

Plaintiffs are judicially estopped from this late change of 

theory. “[J]udicial estoppel prevents a party from changing its 

position after it has successfully urged a different position to obtain 

a certain litigation outcome.” Godfrey v. State, 962 N.W.2d 84, 100 

(Iowa 2021). The Plaintiffs previously framed their case in a 

particular way to survive a motion to dismiss, an effort that was 

successful. The Court relied on those arguments, noting she might 

otherwise have dismissed the case. Notably, the Plaintiffs also 

framed their case in that same way in their 3/13/2020 Motion for 

Class Certification. The Plaintiffs cannot now abandon their theory.

(Alteration in original.)

The court denied Chicoine’s motion for class certification on the grounds 

that the plaintiffs failed to meet the predominance requirement. The district 

court found Chicoine could not prove the threshold issue of antitrust injury on 

a classwide basis, and accordingly, common questions did not predominate over 

individual issues. 

Chicoine filed an appeal as a matter of right under Iowa Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.264(3) (“An order certifying or refusing to certify an action as a class 

action is appealable.”). We retained the case.

II. Standard of Review.

“We review a district court’s class certification ruling for abuse of 

discretion.” Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., 895 N.W.2d 105, 113 (Iowa 2017). 

“[O]ur review of the district court’s ruling granting or denying certification of a 

class is limited because the district court enjoys broad discretion in the 

certification of class action lawsuits.” Benda v. Prairie Meadows Racetrack &
10

Casino, Inc., 989 N.W.2d 184, 191 (Iowa 2023) (quoting Freeman, 895 N.W.2d at 

113). “We adopt a district court’s findings if ‘there is any reasonable basis in the 

record to support’ them.” Id. (quoting Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 696 N.W.2d 318, 

326 (Iowa 2005)). “Reversal is appropriate only if the record reveals that the 

district court’s decision was based on clearly untenable or unreasonable 

grounds.” Id. (quoting Stone v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 497 N.W.2d 843, 845 

(Iowa 1993)).

“Judicial estoppel is an ‘equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its 

discretion,’ and we therefore review questions of judicial estoppel for an abuse of 

discretion.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 66 (Iowa 2018) (quoting 

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192, 195 (Iowa 2007)); see also Alt.

Sys. Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc., 374 F.3d 23, 31 (1st Cir. 2004) (reviewing

a judicial estoppel ruling for an abuse of discretion consistent with the 

unanimous view of other federal courts of appeals and because of the trial court’s 

“intimate knowledge of the case at bar and [its] first-hand observations of the 

lawyers and their litigation strategies”).

III. Analysis.

“Class actions are governed by Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.261 through 

1.279.” Benda, 989 N.W.2d at 191 (outlining the four requirements for class 

action certification: numerosity, common question of law or fact, fair and efficient 

adjudication, and adequacy of representation); see also Freeman, 895 N.W.2d at 

114–15, 114 n.1 (outlining the thirteen factors for courts to consider when 

determining the fair and efficient adjudication requirement). We reiterate that 

“[o]ur class-action rules are remedial in nature and should be liberally construed 

to favor the maintenance of class actions.” Benda, 989 N.W.2d at 191 (quoting 

Comes, 696 N.W.2d at 320). The plaintiffs have the burden to establish that the 

requirements for class certification are met. Id. at 192. “But at the class 
11

certification stage, ‘the proponent’s burden is light.’ ” Freeman, 895 N.W.2d at 

114 (quoting City of Dubuque v. Iowa Tr., 519 N.W.2d 786, 791 (Iowa 1994)). Yet 

“[a] failure of proof on any one of the prerequisites is fatal to class certification.” 

Benda, 989 N.W.2d at 192 (quoting Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins., 667 N.W.2d 36, 

45 (Iowa 2003)). Chicoine argues the district court abused its broad discretion 

in denying class certification. We disagree.

Under the fair and efficient adjudication requirement, “[a] key factor is 

whether ‘common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members.’ ” Freeman, 895 N.W.2d at 115 (quoting Iowa 

R. Civ. P. 1.263(1)(e)). We have held this is “a fundamental requirement for class 

certification.” Id. at 109. “A claim will meet the predominance requirement when 

there exists generalized evidence which proves or disproves an element on a 

simultaneous, classwide basis, since such proof obviates the need to examine 

each class member’s individual position.” Id. at 119 (quoting Vos, 667 N.W.2d at 

45).

The district court properly applied this “fundamental requirement” to deny 

certification. As the district court found, there are too many variables to 

adjudicate the threshold liability element of antitrust injury on a classwide basis.

Ample evidence in the record supports the district court’s finding. Numerous 

minitrials would be required to determine whether individual chiropractors

would be better or worse off without the challenged Wellmark Administrative 

Services Agreements. Chicoine offered no expert testimony or viable model for a 

classwide adjudication of an antitrust injury. By contrast, in Freeman v. Grain 

Processing Corp., we affirmed class certification where a model supported by 

expert testimony provided a basis for classwide adjudication of neighboring 

residents’ pollution claims. Id. at 110–11, 124–25.
12

Class certification makes sense when there can be an “efficient resolution 

of the claims or liabilities of many individuals in a single action.” Id. at 114 

(quoting Comes, 696 N.W.2d at 320). Conversely, “class adjudication makes little 

sense if individual issues predominate. ‘Inherent in our inquiry into the 

predomination issue is the recognition [that] the class action device is 

appropriate only where class members have common complaints that can be 

presented by designated representatives in the unified proceeding.’ ” Roland v. 

Annett Holdings, Inc., 940 N.W.2d 752, 759 (Iowa 2020) (alteration in original)

(quoting Vignaroli v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 360 N.W.2d 741, 744 (Iowa 1985)). Put 

simply, there is no net gain in efficiency if one class action trial won’t avoid the 

need for numerous minitrials. The district court correctly ruled that Chicoine’s 

claims are more like Roland v. Annett Holdings, Inc.—where we reversed class 

certification as an abuse of discretion because individual liability determinations

on truckers’ workers’ compensation claims were required—than Freeman—

where “the class-action trial would potentially determine liability and damages 

for the class as a whole.” Roland, 940 N.W.2d at 760 (discussing Freeman).

Wellmark and the district court relied, in part, on Butts v. Iowa Health 

System, No. 13–1034, 2015 WL 1046119 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2015). In that 

case, four uninsured patients sued a regional healthcare system, alleging they 

were charged unreasonable rates for medical and hospital services compared to 

insured patients in a “two-tier pricing scheme” in violation of the “Iowa’s

Consumer Frauds Act, Iowa Code chapter 714H,” and three common law 

theories. Id. at *1–2. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification on several grounds, including that their claims involved too many 

“individualized determinations” and the “[p]laintiffs simply failed to prove a 

common, and acceptable, methodology to determine ‘reasonable price.’ ” Id. at 
13

*3. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of class certification because 

individualized hearings would be required:

The district court would have to account for numerous 

individualized facts, including the nature of the plaintiff’s medical 

condition, the treatment provided, the place at which the treatment 

was provided, the date of the treatment, whether the plaintiff applied 

for financial assistance, whether the charge was paid, whether the 

debt, if any, was discharged in bankruptcy, and whether there had 

been a judicial determination the charge was reasonable.

Id. at *7. 

Wellmark argued that Chicoine’s claims likewise involve too many 

individual variables as to whether each chiropractor was better or worse off but 

for Wellmark’s agreements with the self-funded employers. The district court 

agreed:

Differences in demographics, geographic distribution of self-funded 

employers, and the level of competition amongst chiropractors in 

any community would impact negotiations in a “but-for” world. 

These local market realities would impact whether negotiations 

would result in rates higher than those currently set by Wellmark or 

not.

And Chicoine, like the plaintiffs in Butts, failed to prove a common methodology 

to determine the threshold liability issue on a classwide basis. See id. at *5; see 

also Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 187–90 

(3d Cir. 2001) (affirming the denial of certification of a class of brokerage 

customers allegedly overcharged for automated stock trades because 

determining an antitrust injury could not be determined classwide but depended 

on individual variables requiring a charge-by-charge analysis).

The district court and Wellmark also relied on another on point case: 

Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2005). There, Randy Blades and 

several other farmer-purchasers of genetically modified (GM) corn and soybean 

seeds sued Monsanto, alleging it conspired with other producers “to inflate the 
14

prices of their own GM corn and soybean seeds . . . rather than to undercut the 

fees through normal price competition.” Id. at 565. The district court denied the 

plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on the grounds that individual questions

as to antitrust injury predominated over questions common to the class. Id. at 

569–71. The district court recognized that “to satisfy the ‘predominance’ 

standard, plaintiffs must show that both conspiracy and impact can be proven 

on a systematic, class-wide basis.” Id. at 569. “To establish antitrust impact, an 

expert is ‘required to construct a hypothetical market, a but-for market, free of 

the restraints and conduct alleged to be anticompetitive.’ ” Id. (emphasis added) 

(quoting Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 207 F.3d 1039, 1055 (8th Cir. 

2000)). The district court found that the plaintiffs lacked a methodology or expert 

testimony to prove a classwide antitrust injury:

Plaintiffs cannot determine the “but-for” marketplace 

necessary to establish antitrust impact without a reliable 

methodology to determine the premiums paid by farmers. In fact, 

the evidence presented at the class certification hearing showed that 

supply-and-demand conditions for seed sales vary to such a great 

extent that the “but-for” prices could be determined only through 

individualized inquiries for each potential class member. These 

factors include growing seasons and conditions, regional varieties 

and farmer preferences. Common proof simply cannot be used to 

establish a “but-for” marketplace in this situation, particularly 

where the evidence showed that the actual prices paid by many 

farmers was well below Monsanto’s technology fee.

Id. at 570–71. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed 

the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs “cannot prove classwide 

injury with proof common to the class.” Id. at 572. The Eighth Circuit found no 

abuse of discretion in denying certification:

The district court’s discussion of this issue cites the following 

reasons: . . . (2) the market for seeds is highly individualized, 

requiring particularized evidence to determine the competitive price 

that would have prevailed in the locality of any individual farmer; 

(3) prices for GM seeds varied widely, and some farmers paid 
15

negligible premiums or no premiums at all for GM seeds, as 

compared with corresponding non-GM seeds; (4) plaintiffs’ expert 

did not show that the fact of injury could be proven for the class as 

a whole with common evidence.

We rely on the second, third, and fourth of these holdings. The 

wide variation in list prices among hybrids and the pricing of some 

GM hybrids with zero or negligible list price premiums, as compared 

with corresponding non-GM hybrids, would require the purchasers 

of some hybrids to prove injury through evidence that would vary 

according to individualized market conditions and thus would not 

be shared in common with the rest of the proposed classes. For the 

above stated reasons, we affirm the denial of class certification.

Id. (footnotes omitted).

Similarly, as the district court found, Chicoine has “not identified any 

common analytical tool or model that could demonstrate Plaintiffs were in fact 

injured. . . . Here, the competitive price that would have prevailed absent the 

[Wellmark] Administrative Services Agreement would also vary by locality, 

demographics, the size of the self-funded employer, and competition among 

chiropractors.” This finding by the district court is well supported by the record. 

Chicoine is represented by able counsel with extensive antitrust and class 

action experience.4 We appreciate lead counsel’s candor during the district 

court’s hearing on class certification (quoted in full above) when he admitted that 

the foregoing liability theory could not be proven classwide. As the district court 

noted, “Plaintiffs’ Counsel conceded that class certification would not be 

appropriate under the theory asserted in Plaintiff’s class certification motion.” 

The district court appropriately gave weight to this concession.

“The district court has considerable leeway when deciding whether to 

certify the class.” Freeman, 895 N.W.2d at 115. We conclude that the district 

court acted within its broad discretion in denying class certification on the

4Chicoine’s lead counsel has been pursuing antitrust claims on behalf of chiropractors 

for over forty years. See, e.g., Health Care Equalization Comm. of the Iowa Chiropractic Soc’y v. 

Iowa Med. Soc’y, 501 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Iowa 1980), aff’d, 851 F.2d 1020 (8th Cir. 1988).
16

grounds that individual questions predominate over common questions on the 

threshold liability issue of antitrust injury.

We also conclude the district court acted within its discretion in applying 

judicial estoppel to prevent Chicoine from belatedly reviving a different liability 

theory that Chicoine’s counsel previously abandoned to avoid a motion to 

dismiss. “[T]he rule of ‘judicial estoppel’ prevents a party from changing its 

position after it has successfully urged a different position to obtain a certain 

litigation outcome.” Godfrey, 962 N.W.2d at 100 (Iowa 2021). The doctrine is 

“designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. (quoting Tyson 

Foods, 740 N.W.2d at 196). We have applied judicial estoppel to bar a party from 

taking inconsistent positions at different stages of the same case. See id.; see 

also Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Haverly, 727 N.W.2d 567, 573–75 (Iowa 2006) 

(concluding that the employer was estopped from denying liability in the workers’ 

compensation claim when it admitted liability earlier to control the care 

provided). Indeed, we have already applied judicial estoppel against other 

plaintiffs represented by the same counsel in this protracted litigation. See

Wellmark, Inc. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 890 N.W.2d 636, 645 n.5 (Iowa 2017) (precluding 

chiropractors in the putative class action from reviving their rule-of-reason 

antitrust claim that they had previously stipulated out of the case to avoid a 

stay).

Choices have consequences. Attorneys may plead in the alternative, but 

shifting liability theories to avoid a dispositive motion or stay, and then asserting 

a different theory at trial is highly problematic. See McCoy v. Thomas L. Cardella 

& Assocs., 992 N.W.2d 223, 231 (Iowa 2023) (reversing judgment for the plaintiff 

on a jury verdict and criticizing the plaintiff for “shifting positions” to avoid 

summary judgment and then recharacterizing her claims at trial); see also 

State v. Duncan, 710 N.W.2d 34, 43 (Iowa 2006) (“If [taking inconsistent 
17

positions] were permissible, there would be no end of litigation, for with every 

defeat a party might change his ground, mend his hold, and proceed 

indefinitely.” (alteration in original) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 

N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911))).

The judicial toolbox thus includes the doctrine of judicial estoppel—which 

was properly applied yet again in this litigation, this time in denying class 

certification. In Alternative System Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsis, Inc., the First 

Circuit affirmed a judicial estoppel ruling where the district court’s review “paints 

a convincing picture of a litigant who took one position, used that position to its 

advantage at the motion to dismiss stage, and later attempted to switch horses 

midstream to revive a previously abandoned (and flatly inconsistent) claim.”5 374 

F.3d at 34–35 (describing counsel’s shifting positions as “playing fast and loose,” 

“carrying out a game of bait and switch,” “artful dodging,” and “smoke and 

mirrors”).

Such a convincing picture is painted here. Chicoine previously argued that 

the antitrust violation was Wellmark’s enforcement of the agreements to pay 

chiropractors lower fees. Wellmark moved to dismiss under the single-entity 

defense, arguing it acted as agent for the self-funded employers and the resulting

single entity cannot conspire with itself to lower prices. To avoid that defense, 

Chicoine switched horses and argued that the antitrust violation was not 

5This phrase—“to change horses midstream”—means “to make major changes in an 

activity which has already begun; to choose someone or something else after it is too late.” 

Michael D. Moberly, Swapping Horses in Midstream: A Comparison of the Judicial Estoppel 

Doctrine in Arizona and Nevada, 32 Ariz. State L.J. 233, 233 (2000) (quoting Richard A. Spears, 

NTC’s American Idioms Dictionary 53 (1991)). This expression “was originally popularized in this 

country largely as a result of Abraham Lincoln’s explanation for his 1864 presidential 

nomination.” Id. at 233 n.1. During his renomination campaign, Lincoln addressed a delegation 

from the National Urban League and “said that he did not presume to be the best man for the 

job, but his renomination instead reminded him of an old Dutch farmer’s remark that it is ‘not 

best to swap horses when crossing streams.’ ” Id. (quoting John C. Waugh, Reelecting Lincoln

202 (1997)).
18

payment of the lower rate under the agreements, but rather the fact that entry 

into the agreements themselves took the self-funded competitors off the playing 

field. Chicoine rode that horse all the way to the final minutes of the hearing on 

class certification. At that moment, facing denial of class certification on the 

predominance requirement, Chicoine tried to change horses again, jumping back 

onto the theory that the antitrust violation is the lowball price uniformly paid 

under the agreements, not the removal of the self-funded employers from the 

competitive playing field. The district court determined that the “[p]laintiffs are 

judicially estopped from this late change of theory.” We hold the district court 

acted within its discretion in applying that doctrine. 

IV. Disposition.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court ruling denying Chicoine’s 

motion for class certification. 

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur except Mansfield, J., who takes no part.